[racket] letoverlambda

From: Eli Barzilay (eli at barzilay.org)
Date: Wed Nov 24 01:13:04 EST 2010

An hour ago, Philippe Meunier wrote:
> Eli Barzilay wrote:
> >It's more than that -- the "theoretically advanced ... but" that he
> >uses shows off that he really considers the CL macros to be more
> >advanced.
> That's because he apparently only knows about syntax-rule and not
> syntax-case.  [...]

Yeah, I said earlier that it's "hygiene ignorance (which is overall
very popular in the CL world, usually a by-product of equating
"hygiene" with `syntax-rules')".  The bottom line is if you mail him
(or maybe post on c.l.l) you won't get far: you can claim that you can
do any macro that he can and do so, but once he (or any average cller)
sees `syntax-case' you'll get flamed because *obviously* he was
talking about "standard scheme", and *obviously* he rightfully doesn't
know or care about whatever insignificant local extensions racket made
on top of that.

A new piece in such games is the fact that R6RS *does* have
`syntax-case' etc, and -- unsurprisingly -- that doesn't help either.
(You'll get flamed because it's controversial, or because it was
published after the book came out, or maybe I can just put you on hold
for a minute because I have something in the oven.)

          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!

Posted on the users mailing list.